Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Whether torture is going on there or not, a planned visit by VIPs to the camp is not the best means of investigating the truth. The good people will remain good, and the bad, unless they’re really out of control, will do their utmost to present a clean image.

What we need are means of investigation that defy prepared responses and pretenses. Show me that Gitmo comes out clean under those conditions, then I’ll take your word for it.

Indeed. Nice to know Gitmo isn’t stupid enough to torture people in front of Congressmen. That would be as stupid as posing for a naked pyramid. Personally, I find it more telling that BushCo won’t let an INDEPENDENT Agency investigate Gitmo. Wonder why?

It also seems interesting that you are fixated with the Nazi comment. As if that means anything other than the fact that there are no gas chambers at Gitmo. The question here is whether there is torture. Unfortunately, out of your 70,000 cases, a LOT of whom are innocent, there are very few who say they were NOT tortured.

I have talked to many criminals. I met people who bragged about their crimes, but I never met anyone who wasn’t innocent.

Torture leaves physical evidence. John McCain can’t raise his arms to comb his hair. Speaking of independent investigations, how many of these guys who say they were tortured are willing to be examined by independent doctors to show the signs of their torture?

The reason I fix on the Nazi is that the comparison is so monumentally stupid. I am really disappointed in Durbin, who I used to respect.

Jack,
The damage is done. It’s too late to close the door, the horses are already out of the barn. It might be possible to convince people in this country that the US doesn’t torture people, but a picture speaks a thousand words, and the pictures (from Abu Ghraib) are out there.

Btw, the timing of this post might be off a tad- on 6/30 more pictures from Abu Ghraib will be released. It took a lawsuit by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information act to get those published. Brace yourself.

It’s too late, Jack. There’s no exonoration, no Congressional fact-finding tour that will ever whitewash the damage & restore the reputation of the US, especially not in the eyes of the world. Never mind the renditions, the prisons in places we’ll never know.

We opened the door to a little bit of torture, and a whole lot came in.

There’s an old military saying: ‘You can build a thousand bridges, and they call you a Bridgebuilder. But **** just one ****, and do you think they still call you Bridgebuilder?’

Finally, it’s telling that tonight the President addressed the nation on Iraq, and it’s not even receiving a passing comment. Bad sign.

With apologies to Voltaire: “If torture did not exist at Guantanomo, it would be neccessary to invent it.”

I am not omniscient and won’t presume to say categorically that there has been no torture at Gitmo. I hope that we will eventually know. But whether there has been tons of torture or absolutely none, we’d still be hearing the same stories to the effect that it IS happening.

On Okanawa and on Iwa Jima, the reason the Japanese fought to the death (and this has been substantiated by numerous historians) was less because the Japanese held a fanatical belief in the holiness of their cause than a fear that commom practice among American soldiers included such things as skinning their captives alive and drinking their blood. So said the propaganda out of Tokyo.

So was it true? The skinning and vampirism? Well, again, I’m not omniscient.

phx8 you’re wrong on so many fronts I am at a loss of where to begin. First though, the act of rendition the Dems love to trot out actually was first conceived and employed in the Clinton administration in 1992. And it really is an effective interrogation technique in that the detainee is transfered to his country of origin and interrogated by local officials. It works remarkably well in that all of these detainees would much rather be interrogated by the Amercians, who have the ACLU watching every word. So my hat’s off to Clinton on that one. Secondly, there is no torture at Gitmo, save for the Christina Aguilera music, that’s brutal. And as for Abu Ghraib, please have some perspective. While I am not condoning it and those responsible paid the price, that was nothing more than humiliation. Cutting heads off of people on live TV would qualify in my book as real torture and if you want to know the truth, the extremists are probably laughing their ass off at people with attitudes like that. They’re counting on that attitude for them to achieve their goal.

Jimmie,
Make a case. Generally speaking, I agree with liberal positions- if anything, the Dems aren’t far enough left for me- but it’s not always the case, and that’s true for most people. For example, the other day the Supreme Court made a decision on property rights, & I fully side with Scalia & Thomas, and against the liberals on the bench.

But I don’t want to derail the discussion. Let’s stick to the topic.

Enlighten me with the truth. Jack posts that a report concludes conditions at Gitmo are ok. One of those Senators, Wyden, is from my state. He’s a good man, & I respect him. Another Senator is Bunning, who should have retired already. Anyway, Bunning states that he observed 6 interrogations & everything was fine, which is, let’s face it, pretty silly. Does anyone seriously think the interrogators would waterboard a prisoner in front of a US Senator?

My main point: it’s way, way too late for this report to help; not only that, it’s going to get worse, with more Abu Ghraib pictures being released 6/30. The timing of this discussion might be a little off.

And to top it off, the President made what should have been an important speech on Iraq tonight. The speech went nowhere. The media is practically ignoring Bush. Expect current trends to continue- falling approval ratings for the President, & failing support for Iraq. This is not good at all.

jimmie-
And that is what the Administration’s been saying, right? Has it occured to you that the argument’s been centering around this administration’s credibility, and that some of the main explanations for going to war have been proven false?

Jack,

” Senator Durbin apologized for his bad math and moral blindness in calling Guantanamo a gulag or a Nazi camp.”

Senator Durbin did neither. The comment he made was that in reading the reports it sounded like something he would read about in a Gulag or a Nazi camp. That doesn’t even sound like what has been reported.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/21/165107.php

“Quoth Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) regarding a report on Gitmo: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime ? Pol Pot or others ? that had no concern for human beings.”“

Please tell me that you aren’t going to spin his exact words.

Jay,

“phx8 you’re wrong on so many fronts I am at a loss of where to begin. First though, the act of rendition the Dems love to trot out actually was first conceived and employed in the Clinton administration in 1992.”

How could you be so wrong in just the first sentence.

Get your sources straight.
There was no Clinton Administration until January, 1993.

You’re right Rocky, and fast. I looked and it was employed in 1994, my bad. Sorry.

No problem.

What get’s me about the dems was how quiet most of them were before the war with Iraq. There were only a few that had the guts to stand up and totally oppose our invovement in the country. Most just remained silent trying to play it both ways. Now that the whole thing is going sour they start screaming. Where were they when the discussion might have mattered?

Jay,
“There is no torture at Gitmo, save for the Christina Aguilera music, that’s brutal.”

Good one!

But blame Clinton? Let’s be realistic. The US knows a lot about interrogation techniques, and has for some time. In 1981 I went through USAF Survival Training, which included an all expenses paid experience of a simulated POW situation. Interesting, but pretty unpleasant, and those guys were on my side.

Even then, a quick introduction to the wonders of American pharmocology would break some people. I have no doubt the very best techniques have been applied on a limited basis as far back as Reagan, & probably earlier.

Under Bush, we took a quantum leap in the willingness to use torture, and the situation went out of control.

It’s not surprising. Torture works that way. People who administer torture can lose it quickly, & turn viciously sadistic.

If it’s worth torturing, say, Mohammed Khalid, then why not his subordinate? How about some guy who fired a rifle on our Marines? What about the teenager who saw it happen? What does he know? The situation spins out of control so easily.

Hence, Abu Ghraib. There are a lot of other investigations going on as well, including a notorious one at Baghram Prison in Afghanistan.

Noting that terrorists such as Zarqawi do worse is accurate, but it does not provide consolation.

Remember, Jay, we want to be the good guys, and stand for what is right, not just be ‘better than Zarqawi.’

extagen,

“What get’s me about the dems was how quiet most of them were before the war with Iraq. There were only a few that had the guts to stand up and totally oppose our invovement in the country. Most just remained silent trying to play it both ways.”

This is just crap. There were literaly tens of millions that stood up and protested.
Mr. Bush said that they didn’t know what they were talking about and he knew what he was doing.

Now we know he didn’t.

It’s the same old refrain. Somebody is lying to us. GARBAGE!!!
From the Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (JTF-GTMO)
A detainee who has assaulted GTMO guards on over 30 occasions, has made gestures of killing a guard and threatened to break a guard’s arm. With that much action surely our out of control guards would have done something to this guy, wouldn’t they?
Or try this one.
A detainee, who fought as a Taliban soldier at Konduz, stated to the MPs that all Americans should die because these are the rules of Allah. The detainee also told the MPs that he would come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep. The detainee went on to say that upon his release from GTMO, he would use the Internet to search for the names and faces of MPs so that he could kill them. Surely that would have provoked some type of emotion from those young MPs so that the detainee would show the results of the MPs anger. Doesn’t that sound real?
But, of course we are being lied to. So, the detainees are the ones probably telling the truth.
There are some, I suppose, that sitting down with the detainees and playing a round or two of gin rummy will gain the intel necessary. Since some have decided that our MPs did torture some detainees, then it is their moral responsibility to say just what torture, to whom it was done, and on what date. I will not hold my breath waiting for that data.
Maranatha

Torture the bastids. Screw this “enlightened” BS and get whatever info you can before feeding ‘em to the sharks.

Otter,
Fine paraphrase of a lofty moment in American rhetoric:
“Four score and seven years ago, we fed the bastids to the sharks…”
“We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union, fed the bastids to the sharks…”

Jack, the reports of abuse weren’t made by Democrats. They were made by the FBI and the Pentagon. Are you actually trying to refute their veracity?

Guys just thank god that that todays Democrats and Liberal Democrats weren’t around during WWI or WWII. It’s evident to me that a large part of this county is incapable of fighting a war, or letting our military fight a war. I just hope that there is never a MAJOR conflict in my life time. I don’t think I could stand seeing Americans fly the white flag. Yesterdays druged out hippys had children who are todays liberal blame America First crowd. It’s sad that so many people who are angered by two presidential election loses that they would say the things that Kennedy and Durbin have said. True Americans? I think not. I just wonder when it became fashionable to hate one’s own country?

You all keep repeating the mantra that Guantanamo is not like the gulags or nazi camps like it’s true. The fact is that they do have some aspects in common.

The Soviets used to obtain lists of names from people they were interrogating, and round them up. The US has done this too, but they also have a more capitalistic version - paying Afghani warlords $35,000 per captured “member of Al-Qaeda”, this in a country where the average wage is $35 per month.

The Soviets used to interrogate people with the sole purpose of obtaining a confession and a list of names. This is also the purpose of the American interrogations. In both interrogations, people were made to confess to ridiculous acts which they could not possibly have done. In both cases, whether or not they have actually done it is irrelevant, it is the fact that they have confessed that is important.

The Soviets used to disperse prisoners to far flung corners of their territory, where they could never be visited by friends or family, even if they were allowed to visit, and assuming they had actually been told where they were being held (or even that they were alive). This is also the case with the American prisons.

In neither case are the prisoners subjected to what we would call due process. Luckily, one of the many differences between the systems is that released prisoners are able to sue in the US courts. So I guess we will find out the truth somehow. As for a war on terror Gulag Archipelago, there have been some reports, for example here and especially here.

Club G’itmo. Your home from the stress of jihad.

Paul:

Good points, but I’m not sure it will ever convince many on the right. They now have, in such tactics, something that many of them appear to have wanted for some time. A return to McCarthyism as a means of investigation, now applied on a global level.

Ken,
I dont think you need to talk about people incapable of fighting a war when your chief war hawks took a pass when their chance came.

Wow ken, do you have Sean Hannity in an IV bag going straight to your bloodstream?

Sorry to go a little off subject but this must be addressed.
“Blame America First crowd” - repeated over and over so as to become the truth.

I am a very liberal, free spirited Democrat, I love the US and the life I live here (even though it is Ohio). What I see happening is a select group of people dictating how things are going to be done, without regard for the rights of others. This includes the subjects of religion, environment, and social responsibility.

1. Religion - please keep your god in your church, your home, and your heart.

2. Environment - removing CO2 from the list of contaminants does NOT make the air cleaner.

3. Social Responsibility - I am part of the “working poor”, going to college on loans, can barely afford to keep my health coverage at my job(not mentioning copays and deductibles) and barely able to make ends meet til I graduate. Even then I’m skeptical about the job market.

….but I love this country

I think you are picking up the wrong signal from “them damned liberals”, or you watch too much network news (op-ed channels).

Jarandhel
Define McCarthyism. Most people use the phrase without knowing the meaning. I just wanted to know your application.

Paul
The detainees will not be able to sue for anything in the US courts.

The Soviets did not imprision people for the sole purpose of getting more names. There were put there because they appeared to be a threat to the criminal leaders of the USSR. Your spin on Gulags and Gitmo doesn’t fly.

Rocky

I was trying to be nice to Durbin. He made a bad mistake in judgment. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Phx8

You are right about the PR problem and I regret that. But the truth is that the whole thing is greatly exaggerated.

All

Comparisons to Gulags or Nazis are really stupid. Some people are playing an elaborate game of bait and switch, but most the participants are missing it. This is how it works.

First we all stipulate that America is held to a higher standard. Sure MILLIONS died in Gulags and Nazi camps. Sure nobody died in Guantanamo. Sure MILLIONS were imprisoned in Gulags and Nazi camps. Sure less than a thousand are in Guantanamo. Sure people starved to death in Gulags and Nazi camps. Sure the prisoners at Guantanamo eat better than many of us do on an average day. But we hold America to a higher standard, so even these infractions that are minor by international or historical standards are a festering bucket of puss for the U.S. Okay, I don’t always agree with this logic, but I can understand it. But if you believe this, you are no longer allowed to compare to Gulags or Nazi camps because you have already ruled out the comparison.

To Democrats who love playing gocha with President Bush, you won’t get him. These charges will not bother President Bush much at all. He is immune to your attacks in this area. The ones you are hurting are your fellow Americans and our country’s reputation. Bush will be retired and rich in three years. He has no more offices to run for. He gets away Scot free. You can’t touch him. So if you really believe the U.S. policy is as bad as Gulags or Nazis, you should become better educated about history. Maybe a visit to one of the camps in E. Europe would be in order or just try the holocaust museum right here in the U.S. If you don’t believe it, cut out the rhetorical attacks because you won’t hit your target

The Soviets did not imprision people for the sole purpose of getting more names. There were put there because they appeared to be a threat to the criminal leaders of the USSR. Your spin on Gulags and Gitmo doesn’t fly.

Have you read the Gulag Archipelago? People were jailed for no purpose whatsoever, not because of the appearance of a threat.

phx8, I am not blaming Clinton, simply stating that the policy of rendition began under his administration (a administration that I voted for, twice). I agree with you in that we are the good guys and must be very concientious of that fact and hold ourselves to a higher standard then Zarqawi. That being said, we must also do everything we can to obtain the information necessary to protect ourselves and other innocent civilians from the extremists who haven’t met anybody they wouldn’t like to kill. This is a fine line and I, for one, am willingly to give the benefit of the doubt to our military and not to the detainees when it comes to any speculation of torture. Remember, our military leaders are good men and trust them to make that judgement call. GW’s speech last night was a good one, we must never forget that freedom, democracy and opportunity for every citizen is what will bring about lasting peace on this planet, but it will take courage and sacrifice to get there.

The FBI sources, the pentagon, the torture memo, etc, have convinced me that torture ocurred at Guantanamo. I agree with phx8 that a planned visit by senators really doesn’t reveal anything. However, I hope that the senators are right and that the abuse is no longer happening. If that is the case, it means we have cleaned up our act, and that we have acted as Americans should. If we have, who do we have to thank for it? The press and the liberals, who saw a problem, made a stink about it, and now it’s fixed, removing a cancer from the American body.

“Comparisons to Gulags or Nazis are really stupid.”

I wouldn’t say “stupid”, just “pointless”. There are valid comparisons between Gulags, Nazi camps, and Gitmo. Heck, if you dig deep enough, you can find valid comparisons between Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ. But just because you can find similarities doesn’t change the fact that there are some HUGE differences.

Durbin made a poor choice of words, and effectively committed political suicide in the process. But his point was valid — the actions he described sound more like the actions of the Bad Guys (tm) than those of the Good Guys (tm). If those stories are true, we should be ashamed of them, and should do something about them.

Now, we’ve heard some Democratic senators say that they saw no signs of abuse at Gitmo. That could mean one of two things: (1) there was no abuse there, or (2) the abuse stopped while the senators were there. In my own job, I’ve seen business practices change when ISO auditors were around, so the senators’ report doesn’t really tell us anything.

Unfortunately, most Republicans would rather assume no abuse has occurred (because America can’t do anything wrong), while most Democrats would rather assume it has occurred (because Bush can’t do anything right). I’d prefer a non-partisan inquiry to determine IF they are true, but that’ll never happen. The Powers-That-Be have already made up their minds.

And, for the record, I don’t believe either side “hates America” — saying so just pisses people off and prohibits rational debate. Both sides are trying to protect their country — they’re just fighting against different threats. Unfortunately, we can’t successfully defend against either threat (internal or external) without working together, but neither party wants to do that. Only when they’re forced to do so — when they’re sharing the government — do we see progress. This one-party rule we have right now has to end, and fast!

Ok Jack,

We’ll leave out comparisons between gulags and the American military prison archipelago. Did you read the link I posted before? It’s the testimony of 3 British guys who were in Guantanamo for over 2 years before being released. I believe Lawnboy posted a similar thing a few days back, but with a fourth guy’s testimony too (and the details of the people in the US Govt they are suing). This one has pretty pictures of the entertainment at the holiday camp though…

Have you read the Gulag Archipelago? People were jailed for no purpose whatsoever, not because of the appearance of a threat.

Or anything by Milan Kundera like “The Joke?”
Or “1984,” by George Orwell? Usually these imprisonments are to get info, demoralize the detainee and release them into society a shell of their former selves.

BTW the real problem with Gitmo et.al. is that there are people there who have no info to give, are no danger to the US, and will never even have the chance to prove themselves innocent.

Paul

And what were these poor guys from the British Midlands doing in Afghanistan?

I don’t doubt they were treated roughly. That is what you should expect when you fight for the bad guys. Being treated roughly and torture are not the same thing and in a Gulag they would not be suing today.

BTW - You may not believe U.S. authorities, but there is even less reason to believe these guys, who have ample ideological and financial reasons to lie.

Personally I do not believe that there has been any torture or mistreatment at GITMO.

That said, I feel relatively certain that the Democratic Senators were shown favorable conditions, much like when you know someone is coming to look at a house you are selling so you prepare it to look nice.

In any case, if the implication by our friends to the left is that sure it’s not happening now,
but it was before the visit, they have NO CHOICE but to at least consider the possibility that Saadam had the WMD but moved them prior to the inspectors, war or whatever.

Steve makes a good point about logical consistency. All those so sure about the lack of WMD might think about this. We really can’t know what we don’t find.

There are a couple of salient facts about Guantanamo. There are only just over 500 guys there. Food is good and plentiful. Everyone has access to religiously appropriate food. Beliefs of the inmates are respected as a matter of policy. Nobody has died there. The Senators found nothing amiss. To me all this doesn’t sound like the hell described by others. I am sure it is not a pleasant place, but it is not a place of torture either, unless we stretch that definition beyond any reasonable bounds.

Move on guys. There is nothing to see at Guantanamo.

phx8 you’re wrong on so many fronts I am at a loss of where to begin. First though, the act of rendition the Dems love to trot out actually was first conceived and employed in the Clinton administration in 1992. And it really is an effective interrogation technique in that the detainee is transfered to his country of origin and interrogated by local officials. It works remarkably well in that all of these detainees would much rather be interrogated by the Amercians, who have the ACLU watching every word. So my hat’s off to Clinton on that one. Secondly, there is no torture at Gitmo, save for the Christina Aguilera music, that’s brutal. And as for Abu Ghraib, please have some perspective. While I am not condoning it and those responsible paid the price, that was nothing more than humiliation. Cutting heads off of people on live TV would qualify in my book as real torture and if you want to know the truth, the extremists are probably laughing their ass off at people with attitudes like that. They’re counting on that attitude for them to achieve their goal.

Posted by: Jay at June 29, 2005 12:23 AM

Jay-
Save for your timeline in which you Bash the wrong President, The Actual Reign Of Emporer George I, did not end until late January …1993. I am left wondering, do you or does right know anything or do you(reps) just throw these statements out trying to make those among us that happen to disagree somewhat with your opinion, Look Bad?

Off my soapbox for a moment, As for the comments that have been left here….as to the conduct of US Military Personnel, don’t jump the gun and say “Torture” was Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), or anything of the sort, “For doing that condemns all the good things our “SERVICE MEMBERS” do day in, and day out. I am against, torture and everything it represents, but I am just as strongly against Condemning Innocents, Without due process”. Also ask some of these personnel what their MOS’s are. You be hard-pressed to find many who have been formally trained as MP’s Or Corrections Specialist’s. But I’ll bet you’ll easily find a myriad of others, working as MP’s or Corrections Specialists after just 24 hours of training. Hell, I know for a fact that PFC Englund was not an MP or a Corrections Specialist. She was in fact, a Personnel Clerk. What was she doing in the cell block? Why don’t you ask General Karpinski, I am sure she is just as curious as you are. I’ll bet if she cared even a smidgen, she wouldn’t be where she is now….One Disgraced Soldier.

As Always,
Wayne

Sorry All:

I did not realize that Rocky and others had already brought that up.

Get your sources straight.
There was no Clinton Administration until January, 1993.

Posted by: Rocky at June 29, 2005 12:34 AM

Beat me, with a wet noodle.
As Always,
Wayne

Jack,

Very noce post regarding logical consistency and the advice that followed.

Jack,

They say they went to Pakistan to meet the girl the youngest of them had an arranged marraige with. Upon arriving, they heard that the area around Kunduz was seeing heavy action, and decided to go and see the war up close, and provide help to the Afghani civilians there (Kunduz has a population of 500,000… so imagine hearing that Fresno was under seige.)

This could be a lie, but I have found no counter-claims by the U.S. government, which leaves an information vaccuum as to what actually happened. All we know for certain is that they were captured by an Afghan warlord in the vicinity of Kunduz.

The main problem for me is that Rumsfeld authorized certain “methods” in December of 2002 that made almost everything we saw at Abu Ghraib legal. He retracted the majority of those methods one month later. For instance, stripping a prisoner and using dogs to frighten him (as pictured at Abu Ghraib) was legal for a short time.

In my talks with many of you here, the sexual humiliation of Qhatami was considered fine by you, and we all can see that the detainees at Abu Ghraib were sexually humiliated. Apparently, that should be fine too. After all, the Abu Ghraib individuals who were tortured (or can I not call it torture?) were the worst of the worst there too.

Anyway, we know for certain that Qhatami was interrogated under these more aggressive methods that Rumsfeeld authorized (then banned). Was it during that one month window of opportunity or after?

And, at the end of the day, who are these guys being held at Gitmo? Can anyone here provide me with a list of claims as to why these guys are there?

Right now, Jack is satisfied with “british muslim in Afghanistan during the war”. Is that a crime? It’s suspicious, sure. But why is it Gitmo-worthy?

Jack-
Are the witnesses the only source of evidence here, or is there other documentation?

Jack,

My bad. I assumed the statement I linked to had the same story as the one Lawnboy linked to the other day (I think it was him anyway). This one is missing the bit about why they were in Afghanistan. Perhaps someone can repost the link because I can’t find it anymore.

But anyway. There is no evidence they were “fighting for the bad guys”. They were not picked up by US troops. The US was buying prisoners for thousands of dollars in one of the poorest regions on Earth! The Pakistani Government was also buying prisoners. You have no clue where these prisoners were picked up, you have no idea what they were doing.

This website has a list of the prisoners (31 pages, 20 per page). I’m not going to go through the whole lot for you, but here is where the first few were picked up from - first two were arrested in Gambia. They’ve never been to Afghanistan. The next guy lives in Afghanistan and was picked up with his family in Pakistan having fled when the fighting started. He has been blinded in one eye by US soldiers. The next guy was captured in hospital in Afghanistan. The fifth guy has no details. The next guy was arrested at home in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities. The seventh was Tajiki, but was arrested in Afghanistan and has since been released. The eighth was arrested in Afghanistan at the age of 15. The next guy was arrested in Pakistan. He never went to Afghanistan. The next guy, a Pakistani, was arrested whilst, he says, preaching in Afghanistan. The next guy was arrested in Pakistan whilst working on an aid project. The next one was arrested in Pakistan. The next one was another aid worker, arrested on a plane from Lahore to Dubai. Then another Pakistan arrest. Then another aid worker, again picked up in Pakistan. Then another Pakistani, picked up in Pakistan. Another aid worker, picked up in Pakistan. Wow, the next guy was actually arrested in Afghanistan! Back to normal with the next one though, arrested in Pakistan. The final guy is an interesting one. He got put in Guantanamo Bay as a CIA plant, and almost ended up killing himself after 3 months!

So of the first 20 prisoners, 5 were actually arrested in Afghanistan, of which one has since been released and one became a CIA agent. 11 of them were arrested in Pakistan. At least 3 have never been to Afghanistan. The Government has even seen fit to release 6 of these terrorists, but obviously they are still guilty, and anything they have said after they got out is just them lying to discredit America. On no account must their stories be believed, and no one must ask why they were held for between 2 and 4 years without charge and then simply released.

Steve Smith,

In any case, if the implication by our friends to the left is that sure it’s not happening now,
but it was before the visit, they have NO CHOICE but to at least consider the possibility that Saadam had the WMD but moved them prior to the inspectors, war or whatever.

I see no logical disconnect. When considering the WMDs, everyone knows that Saddam had them in the early 90’s. The question is when he stopped having them, which by all accounts seems to be around the time of the first gulf war.
However, the administration’s defenders are trying to claim that torture in Gitmo never happened. We have evidence that torture ocurred, so not finding it now does not mean that it never happened. Given the limited time frame we’re talking about, I think torture happening in the past at Gitmo is still relevant, certainly much more than WMDs in Iraq 10 years ago.
Do I consider the possibility that the WMDs were removed shortly before the war? Of course. But there is no evidence at all to suggest that they were moved, or even that they existed at the time of the invasion. I would kind of turn your question around—does the fact that you still believe that there were weapons of mass destruction despite the lack of evidence not mean that you should give credence to our own government’s reports of torture, even though carefully planned visits show no evidence of current torture?

Paul,

No, it wasn’t me. I’m not sure which article you’re talking about. No worries.

Rob Cottrell

“..if you dig deep enough you can find valid comparisons between Adolph Hitler and Jesus Christ.” I found one. They were both male gender. Nothing else.

Thousands of people from media, Red Cross and other organizations have gone thru Gitmo. Those that claim torture existed, have not named by name anybody, nor the exact evidence of torture, nor a time frame for the torture. Where is the evidence?

In the Army, we had inspections. Even unannounced inspections were so only in name, as we always had forewarning of an inspection. And what did we do when we heard an inspection was coming? We got our asses in gear and cleaned the place up.

Same at GITMO for visiting politicians. Anyone who thinks differently has never been in the military and doesn’t understand how the military works. GITMO is a military installation.

Mr. Rather should have the story sometime soon.

Okay. Assume Rumsfeld is bad, as I am sure you already have. It costs thousands of dollars to bring a prisoner to Guantanamo and thousands more to hold him there. I can stipulate that mistakes could have been made, but what do you think the motivation was to bring these guys all the way to Cuba? We brought only a few hundred out of 70,000 prisoners and presumably hundreds of millions of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries. These guys really suffered some bad luck. As they were innocently flying kites (presumably after the fall of the Taliban, since it was illegal to fly a kite under that regime), they were scooped up and taken to Cuba. Was it kind of a negative lottery? What did the U.S. hope to get from these guys?

You also need to put yourself back in those times. Right after 9/11 even most liberals were very enthusiastic about fighting the war. In fact, I remember very clearly in September 2001 that Bush was criticized for moving to slowly. Only moveon.org and other extremists opposed. Most people expected more attacks on American targets and it is certain that Osama and his men were planning them. At that time we were more interested in preventing these attacks than anything else. Some of the intelligence gathered from the detainees (as well as the liquidation of others) probably did prevent attacks since despite the threats of the terrorists no others took place.

The day after 9/11, most of us would personally have stomped a terrorist even if we thought he would tell us absolutely nothing. It is a natural human emotion. But we are nation of laws and people who did such things have been subject to punishment.

The think that we all agree on is even if such things happened in the past, they are not happening now.

Jack said: “The think that we all agree on is even if such things happened in the past, they are not happening now. “

Whether they are happening now or not, does little to repair the damage done by Bush’s exempting our military from the Geneva Conventions in the handling of prisoners. We have, and will continue, to pay a very high price in the form of international distrust, lack of cooperation on the ground in other countries, and the loss of America’s leadership role in fostering human rights and dignity throughout the world.

America is under scrutiny as she has never been before, and that means every flaw, every corruption, every horrible crime that becomes news will be viewed by 100’s of millions of people in other countries as more evidence of America’s say one thing, do another - do as we say, not as we do, appearance.

We also are paying the price in the form of our enemies’ credibility relatively elevated by our loss of credibility. America is now in the position of an ex-convict, who for decades will have to lead a perfect and unblemished life in order to shed the image of the past and shed the “suspect” chains everytime one of her actions are questioned.

President Bush has harmed all Americans, stained our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and painted Americans as ugly and divided. And his policies have weakened are military position in the world grossly limiting our military options as well as radically reducing our fiscal options in facing future economic crises by piling deficits up deficits onto our national debt.

America can recover. But like a convict who must renounce their wrong doings in order to be accepted back into society, America must renounce the Bush Administration and its policies if it is to be respected and accepted as a beneficial member of the international community again.

Jack,

Yeah, I remember the emotions during 9/11. I remember that night, I drove to school, to my computer science lab. The TA in that class was a rather attractive young Pakistani woman — one of the sweetest people I had ever met. That night, after having dealt with the aftermath for LESS THAN 8 HOURS, she started bringing her dog (a very large german shepherd) with her everywhere she went — even to class. She was in fear for her life. She was being threatened, booed, and insulted everywhere she went. By the end of the semester, she decided to go back home to Pakistan — she didn’t feel welcomed here anymore.

That night, I wasn’t afraid of the terrorists. I was afraid of what we would do in fear of them. I hoped that we would be cautious, and wouldn’t be in a rush to kick the first ass we could find, but the rest of the country disagreed. It took the Democrats about 2 years to wake up to the danger, and the Republicans still haven’t woken up.

I don’t criticize Bush for his handling of 9/11. I think he did a better job than I would have expected of anyone. I criticize him for his handling of the aftermath. He’s still in fear-mode, and doing everything he can to share that fear with the rest of the nation. It’s time we get past that.

Gitmo should be a minor issue. We’ve had some of those people in there for 3 years. I don’t know if they’re guilty or innocent, if they’ve been tortured or treated like kings. At this point, it doesn’t matter. I’m just tired of seeing it used as ammo between Democrats and Republicans. It’s time we figure out what we’re gonna do with them, do it, and move on.

Great arguments all around.
However, with my two cents admission, I think phx8, Rocky and Paul are the ones who get to take a bow.

Rob and David

I agree about the PR problem. I honestly worry what would happen if we captured Osama bin Laden. I am not sure we could convict him under the rules of evidence we are working. He would certainly claim abuse.

Rob

Being against people of Middle Eastern origin was bad then and bad now. We should not mix the two up. President Bush very rapidly told Americans that Islam was a religion of peace and that we should blame the terrorists, not innocent individuals. But we may exaggerate when we imply that the people in Guantanamo are just innocent guys. Some may be innocent in the legal sense. Of course, OJ and Michael Jackson are innocent too. I have to believe that we didn’t pick up people randomly. It would not make sense, even if you believe our guys are bad. They are not the same as your Pakistani friend.

Even if abuse couldn’t be found, it was likely hidden because they were there for a short time.

I propose that some of the most vocal in demanding that abuse is happening, be allowed to stay a few weeks/months/years untill they can really prove their case.

I’m sure no more than 8-10 congress persons would sign-up for that duty, so we could release that ammout to a dorm in berkley( just the most non-violent ones)to make room.
They should be allowed pen and paper to write their report, and stay as long as they deem nesassary to complete their study.

We can’t allow an independant group because they would demand access to classified info to leak to the press. This would be the next best thing, those mean ole soliders couldn’t hold back forever, sooner or later they would go back to the abuse going on, or it would be proven there wasn’t any.
Dick Durbin should get first choice of rooms, since he thinks the most nasty of the lot get the most abuse, he can pick one to be housed with.

Sounds like a win- win to me.

Jack,

When Columbus first came to America he kidnapped an Indian who came to his ship to trade. The other Indians assumed the man who was kidnapped must have done something to deserve it. But… he didn’t.

I don’t think we picked up people randomly. I think the litmus test in Afghanistan was that if you were a foreigner in Afghanistan that was considered suspicious. (Although it appears that a minority were picked up in Afghanistan). In any case, it is suspicious to be a British muslim in Afghanistan during the war.

But you “having to believe” that there is evidence doesn’t mean that there is real evidence to hold these men. Is it just suspicion? Or is it a really good reason? If you, jack, could just point me to actionable reasons for these men to be incarcarated, it would make a world of difference in your argument.

Not why you THINK they were incarcareted, but the actual reasons why they were incarcarated.

David~

“America is under scrutiny as she has never been before, and that means every flaw, every corruption, every horrible crime that becomes news will be viewed by 100’s of millions of people in other countries as more evidence of America’s say one thing, do another - do as we say, not as we do, appearance.”

“We also are paying the price in the form of our enemies’ credibility relatively elevated by our loss of credibility. America is now in the position of an ex-convict, who for decades will have to lead a perfect and unblemished life in order to shed the image of the past and shed the “suspect” chains everytime one of her actions are questioned.”

And yet the Liberals are still not seeing that(actually they are seeing it but they don’t care…..sounds like the same so called “ignorance” they hate this administration for)and demanding that more and more hit the news! These are things that confuse me here.

brian poole,

I respect your opinion regarding my analagy of the Gitmo trip with the WMD. I do of course remain steadfast in my opinion that there were WMD at the outset of the war that Sadaam secreted once the war began. I believe they will be located at some poinmt in the future.

In terms of the torture issue, if you define torture using the naked picture, dog leash, hanging in the same position for hours, being deprived of your Koran, etc. then I agree that there is proof of torture.

However, I am not among those who object to torture in times of war and believe it is a necessary component of interrogation in order to get information needed to save lives and shorten the war.

Jack,

I really would like to be able to assess the military’s actions in a logical way, but I just can’t. The whole thing is just completely insane. Their actions make no sense.

Why pay for information and prisoners and advertise that you are doing so? The average wage in Afghanistan is $420 per year and the US were offering 5, 10, 20 times that for “Al-Qaeda”. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what’s going to happen.

Why use “robust” interrogation techniques on people in order to get them to confess? Whether it’s solitary confinement, beatings, stress positions, starvation, embarrassment or whatever, people will say whatever you want them to say or whatever they think you want to hear.

Those British guys I linked to - they were held and interrogated for over 2 years. The interrogators consistently tried to get them to admit that they were in a video of an Al-Qaeda training camp which was filmed on a date when they could prove through employment records that they were in Britain. Why did the guards spend 2 years trying to get them to confess to it when they knew it wasn’t them? Why did they release them after they confessed?

If all the people who got taken to Guantanamo Bay were that dangerous, why are they being released without even an attempt to charge them? Why has no one been charged? You may have to believe that people weren’t randomly rounded up, but it’s starting to become more and more obvious that they were.

No, their actions make no sense unless you analyse them in the knowledge that they don’t really care about locking a bunch of innocent people up for a few years.

And besides, maybe the Gitmo guys are the lucky ones. Everyone seems to forget about Bagram, Kandahar and the others until the next guy dies there. No one really knows how many people there are in the system or where they are. I’d much rather have the eyes of world on me than be rotting unseen in a dungeon in an airbase in Afghanistan…

Julia
How suspicious was John Walker as a foreigner in Afghanistan? That was not random. If detainees were randomly chosen, then why was it limited to about one thousand; why not three thousand or five thousand?

Rob Cotrell
Gitmo is about national security and war. It is above Republican-Democrat bickering. The R’s and D’s will always sate their ego by finding something to say that they think makes them important.

Paul
You asked why the detainees that were released were let go for what reason. I’ll submit two reasons. There comrades know they were captured and maybe suspect that they talked. So they kill them. The other reason is that we let them go and are able to track them and kill them. I hope somebody didn’t warn them to not stop to tie their shoe laces.

Tom,

“Gitmo is about national security and war. It is above Republican-Democrat bickering.”

I wish I could believe that. But the list of Democrats that support conditions at Gitmo is quite small, as is the list of Republicans who oppose them. People seem pretty split along party lines, despite what the evidence-of-the-day would indicate.

Show me one person who is opposed to the Bush presidency (besides myself) who isn’t convinced of atrocities in Gitmo.

What about Spc Sean Baker ?
Do we only beat and torture our own ?
And, what about the cover up by Second Lt. Shaw Locke of the 303rd Military Police Company from Michigan, who said: ?Trust me, Spc. Baker. You will be fine.?” , and MP Scott Sinclair who beat Baker, and Capt. Judith Brown who said she doesn’t want to see anyone get in trouble ?

OK, there’s always some bad apples, and we don’t torture and mistreat prisoners on a massive scale, and probably treat them better than most, but this cover-up about Spc Sean Baker, posing as a prisoner, who was then beaten until he has brain damage, wreaks of corruption, and should be investigated. Instead, a cover-up has been underway ever since it happened about 3 years ago.

Steve Smith,
Thanks.
I think we have different perspectives on torture. In a lot of those cases I don’t really care so much about a lot of the individual guys as I do that the US is trying to break people by torture or destroying their fundamental religous beliefs, and holding innocent people for indefinite periods. It makes me if we really stand for principles, or just power combined with fear. I would like to think that the mistreatment has netted some benefits, but I don’t see any. In fact, I think that the perception of the US as someone who tries to break down captives’ religion (the naked pictures, the koran, the dogs, etc) is only lengthening the war and costing lives. If the only way to win the war is to convert the terrorists to democracy, we need to start by sticking with our own principles. Conforming to their stereotypes is not the way to go.

I personally never thought we would find WMDs, but I sure hoped we did, because otherwise we would look really stupid. I still hope you’re right about them, but I don’t have your confidence.

Paul

I still wonder about the criteria for choosing which 500+ people on which to spend millions of dollars when there are hundreds of millions of candidates. You may think the U.S. was mistaken in their choices, but you really have no basis to believe that they just picked people at random.

I would also say of anyone who lived under the Taliban that these guys arrested would not be surprised by brutality. If they claim otherwise, they are not telling the truth. The foreigners chose to go to a country where women were beaten if they accidentally let their clothes slip up, or where a person could be killed for flying a kite, listening to rock music or raising pigeons. Brutality was a daily occurrence in the place they chose to live; so let’s not let them pretend that they were shocked, shocked.

That is why any foreigner found in the country was suspect. If you didn’t support that brutal system, you would be unlikely to do there. If you did support it, you were corrupted.

Nice post Brian.

I have a bit of tunnel vision when it comes to war. The end result is winning. There is no way to say it nicely but when you kill more of their guys than they do of yours and, you control their land and posessions, cut off their supply lines, etc. you win.

All this flag burning, torture, who lied to who, where the terrorists come from and so on crap that we argue about on these posts has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that we are in a war and we need to win it.

Jack,

And you have no basis to believe that they DIDN’T. In the United States, we’re required to provide reasons for incarceration. Do you have an explanation why those reasons are not being provided?

Julia

They are enemy combatants. That is the reason. We don’t need to prove it in a court of law – not yet at least. We captured many thousands of prisoners. Only a few went to Cuba. Even if you assume American military is evil, there is no reason for them to do this unless they had reason to believe what they did was correct.

I understand this is a PR problem, but not a moral one. In retrospect, it might have been better to leave most of these guys with the Northern Alliance. In that case they would have troubled nobody anymore. Next time I think we will have learned.

Ken,
Try during Vietnam. The hippies decided it would be COOOOOOLLLLLLLLL to hate the US and all it stood for while they were using student loans (which most never bothered to pay back) guaranteed by the US government to dodge the draft.
Of coarse after the war they all showed how much they HATED martialism by becoming yuppies and buying everything they could.
Of coarse they still hate the US and have taught thier children to hate it to.

There was something today in the media about secret prisoner of war ships. That we had POW’s on ships and were interrogating them, (of course when the guys on the left start talking about it the prisoners are being tortured, keelhauled, walking planks, etc.)

I’m surprised that this hasn’t surfaced yet, unless it’s just a nasty rumor. I am quite certain however that it will be represented as yet another lie by the administration.

The left will be calling for the immediate dismissal of the ship’s captain and executive officer.

Has anyone else heard of this.

Does anyone else find it funny how we have Democrat Senators saying THERE IS NO ABUSE at Guantanmo and the Democrats still don’t believe it?
Are they that set on making the United States look bad, or are they that used to being lied to by their politicians that they cann’t believe them?
It aint no wonder they cann’t win elections. If they won’t believe their own politicians, how is anyone else supposed to?

Matel:

When a Republican quotes a Democrat, it’s a signal to me that something’s fishy. What difference does it make what political party a guy belongs to? The question I have is whether the statement is true or false. Both Democrats and Republicans have been known to shade their remarks.

As AP said before me, the FBI and the Pentagon stated there were abuse and torture at Gitmo. The International Red Cross said so in no uncertain terms.

Are you dragging in a couple of Democrats to prove that they are just as bad as Republicans? This is no excuse. This administration with its pathological and reckless approach to all those who disagree with it, is encouraging abuses of all sorts. It’s ruining our reputation around the world and splitting American society apart.

This is being done by Republicans, not Democrats.

Jarandhel Define McCarthyism. Most people use the phrase without knowing the meaning. I just wanted to know your application.

McCarthyism contains so many elements, it’s hard to pick a single succinct definition that fully represents the concept. Most generally, I guess you could say McCarthyism is a kind of witch-hunt. In the name of national security, it ignored the principles of innocent until proven guilty, and used as “evidence” only the most tenuous of connections, a form of guilt by association and insinuation, rather than due process. Further, false confessions were often obtained simply to divert attention away from others under investigation. People gave up names of innocent friends and acquaintances in order to be viewed as “friendly witnesses” rather than attacked. It was, in a real sense, the Salem Witch Hunts all over again.

I know your next question is going to be how this is at all connected with the war on terror, so I’ll take the time now to explain the parallels I see. Confessions are again being coerced and used as if they were incontrovertible evidence of guilt, this time through physical torture as well as bribery and other means. Some known criminals, *warlords* even, are being viewed as friendlies when they turn over others as terrorists for money, without evidence of that accusation being demanded. People are being imprisoned, rather than merely blacklisted, without evidence or even charges, let alone trials. There is an assumption that they are guilty, rather than innocent until proven guilty. The accusation is as good as the conviction.

And here at home, the rhetoric is familiar as well. Those who say a word in opposition to these policies are branded as traitors, un-american, even terrorist sympathizers. Not to mention the old saws of godless, commies, reds, etc. The accused are all automatically seen as the worst of the worst, the embodiment of terrorism, and a threat to our very way of life and any suggestion that they may be innocent, or even deserving of a trial to prove their guilt, is treated as anti-american and even evil.

Jarandhel
Now the follow-up. What are the names of the innocent during the McCarthy invetigations? There were only less than twenty by name that were being investigated and the rest were only numbers. Those by name persons had extensive left wing connections. Now who are we wrongfully accusing of actions, events, etc. according to your definition of McCarthyism?

Jack,

What makes a person an enemy combatant? Tell me the reason why the Tipton Three are considered enemy combatants. We have men on death row who are exonorated with DNA evidence 30 years later. Here, we have men incarcareted for two years with no evidence presented at all.

Are you telling me that my expectations are unreasonable? Do you, or do you not believe this statement: “the United States should not provide evidence for the reason why it detained the individuals at Guantanomo Bay”.

Is that what you believe?

tom:

I know Walt Disney was investigated and pressured to name names.

Would you like a more comprehensive list? The McCarthy Witchhunts are the typical Republican Operation.

Jarandhel.

Actually, 110 names were given in the Tydings commission alone. Those 110 people were investigated (after some time passed). And that was the beginning of the commission. So I think your number of 20 is a little disingenous.

In addition, I believe he called the Democrat party the “Commiecrat” party. Obviously, a man with high standards, who was not prone to hystrionics or name-calling.

Jarandhel.

Actually, 110 names were given in the Tydings commission alone. Those 110 people were investigated (after some time passed). And that was the beginning of the commission. So I think your number of 20 is a little disingenous.

Julia, I didn’t say that. It was said in a response to me by tom. I was actually trying to decide whether or not to bother responding to it, since the statement “Those by name persons had extensive left wing connections.” shows the bias of the author rather clearly.

Aldous & Jarandhel
The Tydings Committee was not the one that McCarthy was working under
Walt Disney dealt with the House Un-American Activities Committee. When someone uses the phrase “McCarthyism” it should be defined. It the opportunity presents itself on another posting I will name the names McCarthy had. He had a list that varied in size between 700-900. Only the few cases he was reviewing did he actually put the names out.

tom,

Of course all of the “blacklisted” actors, writers, and directors, deserved what they got, right?

Rocky
You are confusing the Hollywood activity with HUAC. Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with anything in the house chamber. His pursuit was only in government employees who had substantial ties to the CPUSA or their fronts.

As far as the Hollywood people who were blacklisted I personally believe they got what they deserved. They were using the entertainment industry for propaganda purposes.

“…that some of the main explanations for going to war have been proven false?”

The reason for going into Iraq, was the possibility of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, something that most nations, as well as many prominent Democrats, believed was true.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”
…Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

The question of whether Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the US has been answered, and now, those who stood idly by while a threat they believed real existed, are criticizing the individual who once and for all settled the issue…and did it with less loss of life than what we sustained on September 11.

It is incumbent upon they who make the claims of torture and atrocities to prove their charge, instead, the Democrats make the accusations, and then demand that the accused prove the charges false.

How do you prove something didn’t happen?

Tom, as was said at the time, we as Americans have the right to hold unpopular opinions. I suppose Michael Moore should lose his job and be thrown in jail, as should Anne Coulter?

In addition, I think you actually need to review all of the film clips of McCarthy at the time. He was directly responsible for hundreds of people losing their jobs. He was the one who GAVE the names to the Tydings commission. He GAVE names to other commissions. Not serving on the commissions doesn’t change that. In addition, the people he promised not to “name” who were called forward to be questioneod, routinely had their names leaked to the press. The angrier they reacted to McCarthy in the court, the more likely they were to have their name “accidentally” exposed.

Finally, McCarthy was the tip of the spear during the red scare. The House of Un-American activities, among others, derived their power from the rabble-rousing tactics of McCarthy. He was the face of the movement, and even he wouldn’t deny that. Did he disapprove of the tactics of these other committees? Did he speak out against them? Or did he continually goad them on? Isn’t it true he had a list of thousands of individuals he wanted to investigate when he was shut down?

I wouldn’t pursue this line of conversation, except now that I think further on it, it does directly apply.

McCarthy, by his hystrionics and his illegal tactics, undermined the very thing he was trying to solve. By making statements against men like Eisenhower and calling Democrats “commiecrats” among his other Anne Coulterish statements, he made himself the poster child of fear and excess.

If you start holding up McCarthy as a true American patriot, a man we shouldn’t revile, but instead should emulate, you are going to fail. He was childish, and a bully. His tactics ARE being emulated here, the tactics of “Democrats are the party of crybabies” and “Only a traitor would question Abu Ghraib”.

McCarthy would have been much more succesful with his agenda if he was capable of being respectful and mature. But he was not.

If I started pointing fingers and saying “You are a bigoted racist because you support the Republican Party and Abu Ghraib”, then the opinion of others would turn against me, and rightfullly so.

We are a democratic nation. A free nation. You may not like the philosophies and lifestyles and beliefs of your fellow Americans, but that does not mean you can (or should) drag them before a committee, question them, harass them, encourage them to be fired, or blacklist them. If you’re ideas are better than theirs, then you should be able to rest on the quality of your arguments. You shouldn’t have to fall back on name-calling and hystrionics to win. (And that goes for Durbin too)

Luis,

EXCELLENT arguments. But your follow-up questions are poor. All the people you quote did do something about their concerns. 1) Clinton imposed sanctions. 2) The senators voted to give Bush wide lattitude to deal with Saddam.

However, as we have learned, believing someone is doing something isn’t the same as having evidence. We went to war with suppisitions, not evidence. The sanctions were working, and they were less expensive, and involved no loss of soldier’s lives.

As for your question of “how do you prove something that didn’t happen?” I am in total agreement. Everyone is innocent until evidence is provided of their guilt. Rumsfeld’s memo, the admission of what was done to Qhatami, should be enough to open an investigation, but it does not mean we are guilty.

On the same token, the men incarcarated in Gitmo are not guilty until some sort of evidence is provided showing why they are there.

PS: Tom, Doris Powell lost her job because of McCarthy. She worked for a paper that became communist, and continually harassed the communists there until she was fired. Then McCarthy brought her in, and caused her to get fired from hern ew job.

Julia
If those hundreds that lost their jobs were the security risks in the State Department, then guiltly and that is as it should be. Senator Scott Lucas demanded that Senator McCarthy make 81 of the names public, but Sen. McCarthy refused to do so in fairness to those whose names he had. He assigned each case a number and referenced each case by number.
The Tydings Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Foreigh Relations Committee that was set up to investigate State Department employees who were disloyal to the United States. At this time nine persons were named by Sen. McCarthy as security risks. The were: Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Philip Jessup, Esther Brunauer, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley, Gustavo Duran, John Stewart Service, and Owen Lattimore. During the first month of hearings, Sen. Tydings, McMahon and Green heckled, jeered, and intrupted Sen. McCarthy so often that the total time Sen. McCarthy amounted to 17 1/2 minutes of direct testimony. The Tydings investigation became a hoax and a fraud. The Tydings Committee did in fact receive from Sen. McCarthy 110 names. Sixty two of those names were in the State Department. The Committee cleared every one. But the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on Sen. McCarthy’s list had left government either by dismissal or resignation.

There are hundreds of pages in Congressional and Committee Records that are public and contain additional history to what happened. It of course would take too much space here to be absolutely complete.

Julia
One additional point.
The HUAC and Sen. McCarthy were separate events and there was no crossover. HUAC was investigating Hollywood and entertainment. Sen. McCarthy was investigating government employees.
What were his illigal tactics?

Julia
Some information on Doris Powell.

1. She worked for a newspaper called the “People’s Voice” that was targeted to the Negro population.

2. She testified that she had membership in the CPUSA

3. She was on maternal leave from the paper and chose not to return

“However, as we have learned, believing someone is doing something isn’t the same as having evidence. We went to war with suppositions, not evidence.”

I’ve seen the argument made that President Bush should have acted pre-emptively in order to avert the attacks on 9/11 based on some rather sketchy information from unreliable sources.

Yet, in the case of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, where the President had strong evidence coming from the intelligence service of as solid an ally as Great Britain, the continuance of a fifteen year-long demand by the United Nations for Saddam to disarm himself, the unavoidable fact that we had SEEN him use chemical weapons on his own people, and the support of nearly 100% of both sides of the aisle(as we see in my quotes, everyone was sure that he had WMD’s), the president is being accused of acting in a rash fashion by acting pre-emptively.

Imagine the morning of September 12, 2001…the front pages of every newspaper in the world would be condemning Bush for violating the civil and human rights of dozens of young Arab students studying aviation in the U.S., calling him a mass murderer for his bombings of camps in Afghanistan, and all the “impeach Bush” comments coming from the early morning latte and croissant breakfast bunch, enjoying the view of the city as seen from Windows on the World, high atop the Twin Towers.

The proof of Saddam’s weapons may have well been tens of thousands of dead Americans on American soil.

Waiting for proof was no longer an option.

All the people you quote did do something about their concerns. 1) Clinton imposed sanctions. 2) The senators voted to give Bush wide latitude to deal with Saddam.

Sanctions is not “doing something”; years after Clinton’s sanctions, members of his own Party were still voicing their concern. Doing something is eliminating a threat that according to the chronology of the quotations, existed, undiminished (at least in the minds of those fine Americans whom I quoted, from 1998 until the day American troops, under the leadership of George W. Bush, settled the question once and for all.

The moment the question was answered, they turned on the one man among them willing to take decisive action to settle the concerns shown by their pre-invasion quotes.

I want to know why America had to exist for nearly half a decade under the threat they (by their own words) believed to be real, while they imposed “sanctions”.

Is this a joke?

A scheduled visit by Dem. senators is seen by Anthony as a real measuring stick of the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
How about a pre planned visit to a drug house agreed upon by the police and the dealers. I can see the quotes now.”Those were some of the nicest drug dealers we have ever met. We didn’t find a single crumb of illegal substances there”.
Anthony you can’t be serious about this.
Anthony you have no idea how many reporters have had access to the prisoners at Guantanamo. You stated there were thousands. If you’re going to make up information involving numbers,make it cool, like a “kajillion” or “bazillion”.
Besides those terrorists had it coming to them. We all know they’re hell bent on destroying the American way of life(Or is that the liberals?No, it’s them gays, I forget).

“How about a pre planned visit to a drug house agreed upon by the police and the dealers.”

So you equate our armed forces to drug dealers?

Julia, Luis is 100% correct and his arguments are undeniable. Had Bush not taken action in light of all of the evidence, and had we been struck again, there would have been a deafening outcry from everybody (especially the left) wondering why we didn’t take pre-emptive action. We either fight this battle now, or we leave it for our children, but make no mistake, this battle has been coming to us since they started bombing our embassy’s back in the 1980’s. There are many good people in the middle east, it is time for us to help them get back on their feet and take control of their countries.

“this battle has been coming to us since they started bombing our embassy’s back in the 1980’s.”

The first case of an Islamic radical committing a terrorist act against the U.S. was the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

Again, I defer to the master. Keep up the good fight Luis.

“How about a pre planned visit to a drug house agreed upon by the police and the dealers.”

So you equate our armed forces to drug dealers?

He equates people accused of a crime with people accused of a crime. There’s no stretch here, and no insult to the armed forces. You don’t investigate an accusation of criminal acts by calling up the accused and inviting yourself over for tea.

Sanctions is not “doing something”; years after Clinton’s sanctions, members of his own Party were still voicing their concern. Doing something is eliminating a threat that according to the chronology of the quotations, existed, undiminished

So, is your answer “war first”? Shall we start preparing to destroy North Korea and Iran? These are threats that exist, undiminished. Why do we Americans have to live for decades under these threats when all we have to do is go to war to get rid of the threat? (According to you).

Doing anything else would be “doing nothing”. Apparently.

Julia,

“Shall we start preparing to destroy North Korea and Iran? These are threats that exist, undiminished.”

This admministration has cared little for diplomacy from it’s inaguration. With Bolton’s nomination I think that we should prepare for more of the same.

We have become a shoot first, ask questions later culture, and with our video game attention span, we forget that we were already fighting a war in Afganistan.

A war, by the way, we have completed yet.

Tom, re: Doris Powell

If anyone would like to review Doris Powell’s testimony, and the follow-up to her statements, and the result of the McCartthy investigations on her life, I strongly encourage them to do so. Tom’s three point response as to why she is guilty tells me all I need to know about his arguments. I stand my ground, she was innocent. His arguments are, to be cheeky, “McCarthyistic.”

But I guess they should be, since their origin is McCarthy.

If you do read her testimony, I”d like to make clear that HER statments were found to be true.

It makes it even more obvious to me that we need to be careful at Guantanamo. Individuals have a right to know the reasons why they are accused, so they can have the opportunity to prove they are innocent.

To Luis Gozalez,

I’ll try to write my reply so that you don’t get confused by the information.
(It was an analogy based on law breakers and law enforcement)
If you call ahead and tell somebody you are looking for something that could be damaging to that person, there is a likelyhood that that person would not have what you are looking for out in the open for you to see.
I hope this makes sense to you now.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06amay20030700/www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83870.html

I’ll make it easier for you guys. Doris Powell’s testimony is in the doc above. Use your “find” function for Powell. It’s toward the bottom. Read the editor’s note at the end of the days testimony that states she was suspended fom her job. Then do a followup google search to see the proof that what Doris said in her defense was true.

As a Viet Nam era veteran, an American, father of a veteran, one who loves my country and a Democrat I must state, what to me is as obvious as my nose on my face, that this administration and my President can not be trusted to tell the truth. He and they have lied to our country, to congress and even to themselves so many times that I question anything and everything that is said by this administration.

I can not remember so many books ever written about any other administration that are so critical. Books written not just by the dreded “L” word people but by people who have no axe to grind. The question that I pose is, where are the real Republicans? This President is not a real Republican. Real Republicans do not kiss the rear ends of the ultra right churches, the mega rich and ultra big business. Even the Pres. admits they are his base.

Riddle for you. What is the difference between the Republican leadership and the Boy Scouts?
The Boy Scouts have adult leadership. Even though the Boy Scouts are as homaphobic as the Republican leaders.

It is only just a little over 16 months till these leaders will be shown the door and be replaced with people who will care for our country, not just the priviledged few.

“I’ll try to write my reply so that you don’t get confused by the information.”

I fully understood your reply, you equated drug dealers with our Armed Forces, now, you’re clarifying your analogy by saying that you meant to equate our Armed Forces to law breakers.

There may be some lawbreakers in our Armed Forces, but you suggest that everyone at Gitmo is in on some kind of crime and cover up…you’ve obviously had very little contact with the men and women of our Armed Forces.

We prosecute people who commit crimes in our military Andre, like we prosecuted those who committed the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

The men and women in our Armed Forces aren’t perfect, but, unlike Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and other despots, when they torture prisoners, American troops get tried and punished, not promoted.

Luis Gonzales,

My analogy is that the original article charged that an announced visit by Democrats could be used as a measuring stick whether abuse occured. You are trying to twist the analogy so that you don’t have to admit to the ridiculousness of the original articles assumption that this pre-arranged visit could disprove the allegations. I have several relatives who are in the Armed Forces. I like the way you assume things to which you know nothing about.

Luis Gonzales,

“I fully understood your reply, you equated drug dealers with our Armed Forces, now, you’re clarifying your analogy by saying that you meant to equate our Armed Forces to law breakers.”

Please, look up this word: metaphor

Learn it, use it.

“So, is your answer “war first”? “

In case you missed it, war was declared on the US on September 11, 2001.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, he declared war by invading Kuwait, the United Nations then declared war on him, we kicked his butt, he was forced to agree to a conditional cease fire, he failed to meet conditions of the cease fire set in place by the U.N., he plotted to have a U.S. President murdered, and after ignoring the subsequent 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding proof of disarmament, we went in and got the proof ourselves.

Your “war first” rhetoric is so overplayed.

“My analogy is that the original article charged that an announced visit by Democrats could be used as a measuring stick whether abuse occurred.”

So, what you are saying is that all the U.S. military personnel stationed at Gitmo are in on some sort of gigantic conspiracy to cover up war crimes…in other words, you believe that all our men and women in Gitmo are criminals or accomplices of criminals.

Yet…have you shown on iota of proof to the allegations of torture in Gitmo?

Your entire argument is based on the conspiracy nut “logical” progression.

Make up an incident. Lack of proof that the incident you claimed occurred is proof that there is a conspiracy to cover up the incident, because the “proof” was destroyed by the conspirators. Any proof that proves that the incident never actually happened is quickly dismissed by the conspiracy theorist as they claim that the proof was fabricated by the conspirators, and anyone who either has the most remote connection to the people involved in the “cover up”, or can offer testament debunking the conspiracy theory, are themselves part of the conspiracy.

“It is only just a little over 16 months till these leaders will be shown the door and be replaced with people who will care for our country, not just the privileged few.”

Should I post a list of the richest people in the US Congress, and their Party affiliation?

Let’s talk about the Party of the “privileged few” in content with the Party affiliations of people whose last names are Rockefeller and Kennedy.

The three wealthiest Senators are Democrats; in order: John Kerry, Herb Kohl, and John “Jay” Rockefeller.

When I think of “privilege few” the name Rockefeller comes to mind long before the name Frist pops up.

Now, you are looking to a time 16 months from now when the American people will “show” the GOP the door.

I think you may have missed something that happened in these past elections that is very indicative of what the American people think.

As a result of those elections, the GOP holds the majority of the State governorships, the majority of the State Houses, the majority in House of Representatives, the majority in the U.S. Senate, and the White House.

Did you miss the mandate?

“Shall we start preparing to destroy North Korea and Iran?”

I’m certain that the contingency plans are already drawn.

Not doing so would almost be suicidal.

“My analogy is that the original article charged that an announced visit by Democrats could be used as a measuring stick whether abuse occurred.”

You also imply that the entire detail assigned to Gitmo are complicit in their failure to denounce the breakage of laws.

You are suggesting that every single soldier, every single NCO, and every single officer in Guantanamo is helping to cover up torture and abuse…crimes.

Again…you just don’t know what metal these men and women are made of.

You also imply that the entire detail assigned to Gitmo are complicit in their failure to denounce the breakage of laws.

You are suggesting that every single soldier, every single NCO, and every single officer in Guantanamo is helping to cover up torture and abuse…crimes.

Again…you just don’t know what metal these men and women are made of.

Sure we do. The same metal the ones running Abu Gharib were made of.

Your argument is preposterous in the face of our own history in this regard.

Luis:

Hell, we’re also talking about soldiers we *know* put one of their own into the hospital in a training exercise by beating his head on a steel floor till he had brain damage! Their only excuse has been that they did not know he was a US Soldier, they thought he was a prisoner.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml

Still want to defend them based solely on their supposed metal, rather than the facts?

“Sure we do. The same metal the ones running Abu Ghraib were made of.”

The guilty parties have been sentenced to jail.

Now, show me the evidence of abuse; the broken limbs, the bruises, the cuts…anything, and the US will prosecute those involved.

Where is your proof of abuse and tort